That's very uncharacteristic, especially given all those contingency requirements (backup policies, failovers, testing schedules etc.) imposed on corporations/companies in the wake of 9/11.
You actually have to ensure that someone isn't just checking boxes the tests passed and the tests actually passed.
I worked for a regional ISP that had a major outage when the redundant fiber provided by the telephone company was cut in one place triggering a full loss of connectivity. It also caused a massive 911 outage for 200,000 people as it isolated the 911 center from the city core.
Turns out the phone company didn't connect one side of the ring topology even though they certified they did. Needless to say lawsuits abounded.
And auditing that is expensive and you always get given hell from the assholes going “why am I paying for this if nothing has gone wrong”
The amount of shit I was given everytime I went through a checklist working at a fedramp certified company working with emergency alerts on the phone system made me prematurely gray.
I could feel the barely contained seething rage everytime I told the execs that the reason this release will take 3 days and not be instantaneous like your friends releases at a faang and that information made you embarrassed at your dinner party, is because you agreed to this process contractually years ago and now it’s a crime if I just sign off on it being ok without actually checking that it’s ok.
Yea, fangers are def not used to working on life critical systems. I personally have avoided it as much as possible, but not completely, for all the reasons you listed above. No need for me to accept that much responsibility for other peoples lives when I've been able to earn a living just fine not doing so.
It seems that approach is a way to generate losses without actually losing the titles. These losses are needed to offset incomes elsewhere thus not paying taxes on profits.
Investment fund's commodity is value - the rest are just tools to optimize the value.
In aggregate, the owners of these properties are investing to earn a return. Losses only lead to "not paying taxes on profits" if there are no profits. The overall portfolio has to be earning a risk-appropriate return or investors will go elsewhere.
But if there are losses there are no profits. I am with SoftTalker on this one. I figure there are things I do not know that explains how this keeps happening even though my simplistic knowledge thinks it is not sustainable.
WSL was a subsystem to run Linux under Windows 10 without an explicit VM host. It was an Ubuntu Linux version. Later MS released WSL2, complete redesign, still for Windows 10.
With Windows 11 the WSL2 also supported GUI programs.
There's hardly a standard for a 'quality' contribution to discussion. Many styles, many opinions, many ways to react and support one's statements.
If anything, it had been quite customary to supply references for some important facts. Thus letting readers to explore further and interpret the facts.
With AI in the mix the references become even more important, in the view of hallucinations and fact poisoning.
Otherwise, it's a forum. Voting, flagging, ignoring are the usual tools.
"...C is my favorite language and I love the freedom and exploration it allows me. I also love that it is so close to Assembly and I love writing assembly for much of the same reasons!"
I wonder what is author's view about user's reasons to choose a C API?
What I mean is users may want exactly the same freedom and immediacy of C that the author embraces. However, the very approach to encapsulation by hiding the layout of the memory, the use of accessor functions limits the user's freedom and robs them of performance too.
In my view, the choice of using C in projects comes with certain responsibilities and expectations from the user. Thus higher degree of trust to the API user is due.
I always thought that the functions did not need a call keyword, as they normally would return a value, so that functions would appear in an assignment. So one just uses the function.
What needed a CALL was a subroutine, which effectively was a named address/label.
Indeed it would be just as possible to GOTO the address/label and then GOTO back. CALL keyword made the whole transaction more comprehensive.
So in a sense it was similar to calling up someplace using the address number. Often times this would change some shared state so that the caller would then proceed after the call. Think of it as if a 'boss' first calls Sam to calculate the figures, then calls Bill to nicely print the TPS report.
Eventually everything became a function and subroutines were associated with spaghetti...
Now, why is that it's called routine (aka program) and subroutine?
Well, apparently [0],
in a 1947 document "Planning and Coding Problems for an Electronic Computing Instrument, Part 1" by H. Goldstine and J. von Neumann it is stated:
"We call the coded sequence of a problem a routine"
I thought a prime time for contacting the parents is right after school when picking up the kid. Everyone is there waiting, so it's just natural to chit chat, esp when the kids are friends.
I'd count also those memorable school talent shows/performances and events. Another reach out avenue is volunteering, these have a higher chance to match parents with similar availability at least.
Does HFSS visualize the field in real-time or a user needs to set the geometry/parameters then precalculate the field and only then be able to explore the visualization?
Say, if I wanted to see immediate effects of changing an incidence angle, could I just "scroll" the incidence parameter?
HFSS does a typical FEM matrix solve then displays the results. It is often used for very complex or large problems, so as far as I know it isn’t set up for instant display of results. That would be a neat feature for small problems.
I've never tried running for a really long time but when I was doing testing I would not recharged the batteries for days. I would say an easy 15 to 30 minute. But like I say, I'e never tested. Now I think I will. Thanks
reply